Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
First Rent Appeal No.559 of 1984, decided on 10th May, 1987.
--Ss.15(2)(ii) & 21(1)--Ejectment of tenant on ground of default- Dispute over rate of rent--Landlord claiming higher rate than the rate asserted by tenants neither produced any documentary evidence nor examined any witness in support of his claim--Tenants, however, not only examined themselves in rebuttal, but also examined two witnesses in support of their plea--Landlord, held, failed to prove his claim of higher rate. of rent than asserted by tenants in circumstances.
Rehmat Ellahi for Appellant.
Shafi Muhammadi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 19th February, 1987.
These two first rent appeals under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 are directed against the order dated 1st April, 1984.
The facts leading to the filing of the above appeals are that the appellant is the landlady/owner of the building situated on plot No.17, Delhi Mercantile Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Karachi and the respondents are tenants in respect of Flat Nos.12 and 8 of the said building at a monthly rent of Rs.550/- and Rs.25/- per month towards the gas charges. The appellant filed separate rent cases Nos.1295 of 1980 and- No.1296 of 1980 against the respondent on the ground of default. The respondents- filed separate written statements and contended that the rent of the premises in dispute is Rs.300/- and Rs.250/- respectively per month inclusive of gas charges. On the pleadings of the parties, the Controller framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the opponent is wilful defaulter in payment of rent and what is the rate of rent
(2) What should the order be
The appellant's husband filed affidavit-in-evidence in support of the eviction applications. The respondents filed their own affidavits-in-evidence besides affidavits- in-evidence of Fazal Din and one Ikhlas Ahmed in rebuttal. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
The Controller on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties decided issue No.1 in the affirmative and allowed the eviction applications vide order dated 1-4-1984.
The appellant being aggrieved against the order dated 1-4-1984 of the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi has preferred these appeals on the grounds mentioned in the memos of appeals.
Mr. Rehmat Elahi, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Controller erred 'in determining the rate of rent and charges towards the sui gas.
On the other hand Messrs Zafar Alam Khan and M7. Shafi Muhammadi the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the order is in accord with the evidence on record.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.
It is an admitted position that the appellant averred in her eviction applications that the monthly rent of the premises in dispute is Rs.550/- and Rs.25/- per month towards the gas charges. The respondents filed separate written statements and contended that, the rate of rent of the respective premises is Rs.300/- and Rs.250/- per month inclusive of gas charges. The appellant's husband did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the case that the respondent were inducted as tenants at the rate of Rs.550/-. It is an admitted position that the building consists of 12 flats but he did not care to examine any tenant or any other person of the building in support of the case. The respondents examined themselves in rebuttal and examined two witnesses in support of their plea that the rate of rent is Rs.300/- and Rs.250/- respectively. There is no cogent evidence on record from which it can be inferred that the rate of rent per month is Rs.550/-. The burden was on the appellant to establish that the rate of rent was actually Rs.550/-. This burden was not discharged.
For the reasons stated above, I find no merits in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. There shall be however no order as to costs.
H.B.T./F-21/K Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer